Simplicity: Chanel Eau de Cologne

I seem to have liked all the Chanel Exclusifs so far--not necessarily head-over-heels about them, but all the ones I've tried have been really good--so I was all set to dislike Chanel Eau de Cologne, so that I wouldn't seem as if I were simply drooling all over them because they were Chanel. But damned if EdC isn't really good as well.

Here's the thing, though; it's sort of hard to make a genuinely bad eau de cologne, which follows a set structure: choose some citrus fruits for the top, put something with a bit of body in the middle, maybe lay it all on top of something warm, and you're done. There are lots of colognes on the market, and they're generally pleasant to wear and smell: I don't recall having tried a truly bad one.

There are all sorts of variations, of course: the middle can have flowers or green notes, the base can be most any wood or resin, and you have a wide array of citrus to choose from in the top (not to mention sparkling aldehydes and light florals if you like), including begamot, orange, lemon, lime, grapefruit, tangerine, neroli, and yuzu. But the fact is that as a rule, most eaux de cologne are going to smell more or less the same, and this, unfortunately, is also true of the Chanel EdC. It's lovely; plenty of lemon, a droplet of rose, a little vetiver, a musky base. It smells bright and fresh and happy. The lasting power, as you'd expect from such a formulation, is almost nil: an hour, perhaps two. It's meant to be lavished on, enjoyed for its short-lived freshness, and reapplied as needed--the heart and soul of any EdC.

Someone out there will disagree, because some people must be buying it, but I can't see that it's worth almost $200 for a 200-mL bottle (you can also get a giant 400-mL vat), not when you can get many classic colognes for a lot less. The ancient 4711, the very template for an EdC, is an eighth the price of the Chanel; the only thing it's missing is the ritzy bottle and the name.

+

Commenting on my review of Coromandel, Clare said

This one makes me feel like a fragrance philistine. I feel that, due to inferiority (whether inherent or due to lack of knowledge/experience), I am not "getting" the greatness or appeal of it.

Well, listen: don't ever let anyone make you feel inferior for not liking something that everyone else seems to think is great. Every artist, however gifted, and every work of art, however important, has detractors. George Bernard Shaw disdained Shakespeare, saying, "With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his."

There are artworks that most anybody can appreciate, and then there are those that appeal to people who've done the research, who have studied the form. Most people can enjoy a Rossini tune, but it takes some study to understand and derive pleasure from a Berg opera. And then there is the fact that different people have different tastes; even if the masses declared Coromandel the greatest thing since Shalimar, if you don't like it, then you don't like it, and that's all there is to it. And that's all right.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't get Jicky by Guerlain. It's supposed to be one of the greatest scents in history, but it simply doesn't interest me very much. I know all about its history, and I can smell it and understand that it is a ground-breaking work of art, see the craftsmanship in it. But that's all: I don't love it, it doesn't speak to me, I don't desire it. It is not immediate for me, as many other scents, even lesser ones, are. Does that make me a philistine too? Then so be it. I'm a philistine. I have lots of other scents to turn my attention to.